Can teaching agenda-setting skills to physicians improve clinical interaction quality? A controlled intervention

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Physicians and medical educators have repeatedly acknowledged the inadequacy of communication skills training in the medical school curriculum and opportunities to improve these skills in practice. This study of a controlled intervention evaluates the effect of teaching practicing physicians the skill of "agenda-setting" on patients' experiences with care. The agenda-setting intervention aimed to engage clinicians in the practice of initiating patient encounters by eliciting the full set of concerns from the patient's perspective and using that information to prioritize and negotiate which clinical issues should most appropriately be dealt with and which (if any) should be deferred to a subsequent visit.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Ten physicians from a large physician organization in California with baseline patient survey scores below the statewide 25th percentile participated in the agenda-setting intervention. Eleven physicians matched on baseline scores, geography, specialty, and practice size were selected as controls. Changes in survey summary scores from pre- and post-intervention surveys were compared between the two groups. Multilevel regression models that accounted for the clustering of patients within physicians and controlled for respondent characteristics were used to examine the effect of the intervention on survey scale scores.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>There was statistically significant improvement in intervention physicians' ability to "explain things in a way that was easy to understand" (p = 0.02) and marginally significant improvement in the overall quality of physician-patient interactions (p = 0.08) compared to control group physicians. Changes in patients' experiences with organizational access, care coordination, and office staff interactions did not differ by experimental group.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>A simple and modest behavioral training for practicing physicians has potential to positively affect physician-patient relationship interaction quality. It will be important to evaluate the effect of more extensive trainings, including those that work with physicians on a broader set of communication techniques.</p

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Incidentalomas: A Multimodality Imaging Case of Giant Right Coronary Aneurysm

Giant coronary artery aneurysms (CAAs) are defined as having a diameter of greater than 2 cm. We report a case of an 82-year-old male with severe aortic stenosis incidentally diagnosed with giant right coronary artery aneurysm (gRCAA) while undergoing evaluation for transcather aortic valve replacement (TAVR). It was causing a mass effect on the right cardiac chambers but was otherwise asymptomatic. Our patient was successfully treated with surgical excision of aneurysm with concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). The patient remained stable at discharge and on serial follow-ups for two years. In conclusion, due to the associated complication and increased risk of mortality with giant coronary aneurysms, we recommend surgical approach instead of medical management alone. We also call for evidence-based recommendations and guidelines for management of TAVR incidentalomas

Quality monitoring of physicians: Linking patients’ experiences of care to clinical quality and outcomes

BACKGROUND: Physicians are increasingly asked to improve the delivery of clinical services and patient experiences of care. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the association between clinical performance and patient experiences in a statewide sample of physician practice sites and a sample of physicians within a large physician group. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS: We separately identified 373 practice sites and 119 individual primary care physicians in Massachusetts. MEASUREMENTS: Using Health Plan Employer Data and Information Set data, we produced two composites addressing processes of care (prevention, disease management) and one composite addressing outcomes. Using Ambulatory Care Experiences Survey data, we produced seven composite measures summarizing the quality of clinical interactions and organizational features of care. For each sample (practice site and individual physician), we calculated adjusted Spearman correlation coefficients to assess the relationship between the composites summarizing patient experiences of care and those summarizing clinical performance. RESULTS: Among 42 possible correlations (21 correlations involving practice sites and 21 involving individual physicians), the majority were positive in site level (71%) and physician level (67%) analyses. For the 28 possible correlations involving patient experiences and clinical process composites, 8 (29%) were significant and positive, and only 2 (7%) were significant and negative. The magnitude of the significant positive correlations ranged from 0.13 to 0.19 at the site level and from 0.28 to 0.51 at the physician level. There were no significant correlations between patient experiences and the clinical outcome composite. CONCLUSIONS: The modest correlations suggest that clinical quality and patient experience are distinct, but related domains that may require separate measurement and improvement initiatives. KEY WORDS: quality of care; patient centered care; primary care; quality measurement; quality improvement